Commonwealth v. Spotz, M., Aplt.
171 A.3d 675
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Mark Spotz was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 in Cumberland and Schuylkill Counties; his direct appeals and certiorari were resolved in 2000–2002, making any PCRA petitions due within one year of finality.
- Spotz filed facially untimely PCRA petitions on June 16, 2016, invoking the newly-recognized constitutional right exception based on Johnson and Welch.
- Johnson held the federal Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) “residual clause” void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause.
- Welch held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that must be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
- Spotz argued the ACCA residual clause is substantively identical to Pennsylvania’s death-penalty aggravator at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(9), so Johnson/Welch should render his petitions timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
- PCRA courts dismissed as untimely, reasoning Johnson/Welch addressed a federal statute and did not establish a right that had been held to apply retroactively to Spotz’s state-law sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson/Welch satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) so Spotz’s petitions are timely | Johnson/Welch created a new constitutional rule that is retroactive and, because ACCA’s residual clause mirrors § 9711(d)(9), the exception applies to Spotz | Johnson/Welch invalidated a federal statute only; § 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires a new right already held to apply retroactively to petitioner’s case (state sentence), which has not occurred | Court held Spotz failed to satisfy the newly-recognized constitutional-right exception; petitions untimely and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 812 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2002) (interpreting § 9545(b)(1)(iii) requires a right already recognized and held retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time bar is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)